> * Re: Fred's point: 1 $M is a lot when the debate is confined to a > relatively small world of researchers and advocates, but tiny once the idea > goes 'viral' in society at large. Think what a single insurance > conglomerate might spend to head off claims from sea-level rise! > Environmental advocates will soon have to adjust to losing 'ownership' of > the debate- as will researchers (and yes, there is plenty of overlap). NGO > advocacy contra ETC will be handled by existing environmental groups, along > the same lines as existing differences between, say, The Nature Conservancy > vs. Sea Shepherd Society. That seems hard to credit at the moment. But many > greens have noticed that our existing 'Plan A' of emission-reductions now > requires the environmentalist's equivalent of the protestant evangelical > Rapture: a sound of trumpets, a flash of (green) light in the sky, and lo! > It's not a sustainable position, and alternatives will be sought. (Which > highlights the importance of Ken's appearance on KPFA, speaking to an > audience that both cares about the issue and is extremely resistant to the > news he carries).
* Re: Lou's scenario: grimly plausible. What would be the role an intermediate step such as high-latitude SRM in the Arctic? I'm not in a position to evaluate its plausibility (perhaps someone could privately point me to useful reading?) but if plausible enough to attempt it would meet a lower threshold of resistance than a global project. If approximately successful it would be a model, and a temptation, for a broader effort. Which speaks to Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope, obviously. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
